• Google has violated antitrust law, according to a ruling from US Federal Judge Amit Mehta.
• He agreed with the US government’s allegations that Google has a monopoly of general search services online.
• This ruling only relates to an initial finding, so it remains to be seen what kind of action may be imposed on the tech giant.

Like Hoover is to vacuuming and Xerox is to photocopying, Google is the phrase in almost everyone’s lexicon when it comes to searching online. While this is testament to how pivotal the tech giant‘s services have become in recent decades, the US government’s Department of Justice (DoJ) is of the opinion that its dominance is more akin to a monopoly.

A Federal Judge, Amit Mehta, is of the same opinion, and this week ruled in favour of the US government in an antitrust case against Google.

“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta noted in his ruling.

In particular he explained that the tech giant has, “violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”

This piece of legislature, “makes it unlawful for any person to “monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nation.”

As we have seen in recent antitrust cases against Google in the European Union, the company’s search services have proved a particular sticking point, with it baked into several consumer products like Android smartphones, as well as being the default option as part of the Chrome browser.

Google argued that its contracts with phone makers, which includes the likes of Apple that employs Google Search as the default option for search results within the Safari browser, is not exclusionary in any regard.

Mehta, however, rejected the claim, adding that, “The prospect of losing tens of billions in guaranteed revenue from Google — which presently come at little to no cost to Apple — disincentivizes Apple from launching its own search engine when it otherwise has built the capacity to do so.”

With alternative search services seemingly not given an opportunity to be made as readily available to consumers, the DoJ is pushing for greater competitiveness in the marketplace.

“If there is genuine competition in the market for general search, it has not manifested in familiar ways, such as fluid market shares, lost business, or new entrants,” added Mehta.

“Time and again, Google’s partners have concluded that it is financially infeasible to switch default GSEs [general search engine] or seek greater flexibility in search offerings because it would mean sacrificing the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars that Google pays them as revenue share… These are Fortune 500 companies, and they have nowhere else to turn other than Google,” he continued.

What will happen following this ruling remains to be seen, but Google has said that it plans to appeal it.

“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available. As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use,” explained president of global affairs, Kent Walker, in a statement to The Verge.

As this is only an initial finding, it is still unclear what kind of remedies will be outlined, but in the early stages, the US government has the advantage in this developing legal case.